IS 

5PH^te^~!^: 

fc^]!H|p?4  ^^^Lt^^it^  "■ 

-SS- 

ptg-v 

■JjawL  'V\lBfa ^\dMfcfc//-MRgr— ■  \<MfcA—'[1S?' 

SwHfIkJrhKw 

^f-fP;'^:^^),: 

^L'IETrAIO^ 

OF   THE 

UNIVERSITY 

Of    ILLINOIS 

977.2 

In2 

v.© 

«p.4 

ILL  HIST.  SURVW 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


http://archive.org/details/northernboundary86shee 


THE  NORTHERN 
BOUNDARY  OF  INDIANA 

By 
MRS.  FRANK  J.  SHEEHAN 


Indiana  Historical 

Society  Publications 

Volume  8 

Number  6 


INDIANAPOLIS 

PRINTED  FOR  THE  SOCIETY 

1928 


The  Wm.  Mitchell  Printing  Co. 
Greenfield,    Indiana 


THE  NORTHERN  BOUNDARY  OF  INDIANA1 

When  those  of  the  original  thirteen  states  which  laid  claim 
to  the  Northwest  Territory  ceded  these  claims  to  the  United 
States  government,  it  was  with  the  understanding  that  new 
states  would  be  formed  and  added  to  the  Union.  In  the  original 
cession  of  Virginia  these  prospective  states  were  defined  as 
areas  to  contain  not  less  than  one  hundred  and  not  more  than 
one  hundred  fifty  miles  square  of  territory.2  In  accordance 
with  this  plan,  Thomas  Jefferson  drew  the  draft  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1784  for  the  government  of  the  territory ;  the 
land  was  to  be  divided  into  ten  states,  some  of  which  would 
bear  such  names  as  Sylvania,  Cherronesus,  Assenisipia,  Poly- 
potamia,  and  Pelisipia.3 

At  this  time  James  Monroe  made  a  trip  into  this  western 
country  and  reported: 

A  great  part  of  the  territory  is  measurably  poor,  especially  that 
near  Lakes  Michigan  and  Erie ;  and  that  upon  the  Mississippi  and  the 
Illinois  consists  of  extensive  plains  which  have  not  had,  from  appearances, 
and  will  not  have,  a  single  bush  on  them  for  ages.  The  districts,  there- 
fore, within  which  these  fall,  will,  perhaps,  never  contain  a  sufficient 
number  of  inhabitants  to  entitle  them  to  membership  in  the  Confederacy.4 


aFor  much  of  the  information  used  in  this  article,  credit  is  due  to 
the  librarians  who  assisted,  in  the  Gary  Public  Library,  the  Indiana, 
Michigan,  and  Ohio  State  Libraries,  the  Chicago  Historical  Society,  and 
the  Newberry  Libraries;  especially  to  Esther  U.  McNitt  and  her  assist- 
ant, Olga  F.  Ruehl,  of  the  Indiana  State  Library,  who  gave  much 
thought  and  search  in  an  effort  to  find  material  bearing  on  this  subject. 
For  the  map,  we  are  indebted  to  George  Pence,  of  Columbus,  Indiana. 

^Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  IV,  p.  343. 

3Ford,  Paul  Leicester  (ed.),  The  Works  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  Vol. 
IV,  pp.  251-55  (New  York,  1904).  The  word  "Cherronesus"  is  thus 
spelled  in  Jefferson's  original  draft. 

4Larzelere,  Claude  S.,  "The  Boundaries  of  Michigan,"  Michigan 
Historical  Collections,  Vol.  XXX,  p.  6. 

(289) 


290  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

This  visit  undoubtedly  influenced  Congress  to  determine  on 
the  advisability  of  larger  geographical  units,  and  a  resolution 
was  passed  July  7,  1786  asking  Virginia  to  change  her  original 
cession  relative  to  the  boundaries,  because  of  the  "many  and 
great  inconveniences"  it  would  cause.  Certain  of  these  incon- 
veniences were  listed : 


That  by  such  a  division  of  the  country,  some  of  the  new  states  will 
be  deprived  of  the  advantages  of  navigation,  some  will  be  improperly 
intersected  by  lakes,  rivers  and  mountains,  and  some  will  contain  too 
great  a  proportion  of  barren  unimprovable  land,  and  of  consequence 
will  not  for  many  years,  if  ever,  have  a  sufficient  number  of  inhabitants 
to  form  a  respectable  government,  and  entitle  them  to  a  seat  and  voice 
in  the  federal  council :  And  whereas  in  fixing  the  limits  and  dimensions 
of  the  new  states,  due  attention  ought  to  be  paid  to  natural  boundaries, 
and  a  variety  of  circumstances  which  will  be  pointed  out  by  a  more 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  country,  so  as  to  provide  for  the  future  growth 
and  prosperity  of  each  state,  as  well  as  for  the  accommodation  and 
security  of  the  first  adventurers.5 

We  find  therefore,  that  Congress  adopted  a  new  draft  of  an 
ordinance,  drawn  for  the  government  of  this  area,  known  in 
history  as  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  Article  V  of  this  document 
provided  for  the  establishment  of 


Not  less  than  three  nor  more  than  five  States;  and  the  boundaries 
of  the  States,  as  soon  as  Virginia  shall  alter  her  act  of  cession,  and 
consent  to  the  same,  shall  become  fixed  and  established  as  follows,  to-wit : 
The  Western  State  in  the  said  territory,  shall  be  bounded  by  the 
Mississippi,  the  Ohio,  and  Wabash  rivers;  a  direct  line  drawn  from  the 
Wabash  and  Post  St.  Vincent's,  due  North,  to  the  territorial  line  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Canada;  and,  by  the  said  territorial  line, 
to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  and  Mississippi.  The  middle  State  shall  be 
bounded  by  the  said  direct  line,  the  Wabash  from  Post  Vincent's,  to 
the  Ohio;  by  the  Ohio,  by  a  direct  line,  drawn  due  North  from  the 
mouth  of  the  Great  Miami,  to  the  said  territorial  line,  and  by  the  said 
territorial  line.  The  Eastern  State  shall  be  bounded  by  the  last  men- 
tioned direct  line,  the  Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  and  the  said  territorial  line: 
Provided,  however,  and  it  is  further  understood  and  declared,  that  the 
boundaries  of  these  three  States  shall  be  subject  so  far  to  be  altered, 
that,  if  Congress  shall  hereafter  find  it  expedient,  they  shall  have 
authority  to  form  one  or  two  States  in  that  part  of  the  said  territory 
which  lies  North  of  an  East  and  West  line  drawn  through  the  Southerly 
bend  or  extreme  of  Lake  Michigan.  And,  whenever  any  of  the  said 
States  shall  have  60,000  free  inhabitants  therein,  such  State  shall  be 
admitted,  by  its  delegates,  into  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  on  an 


5 Journals  of  Congress,  Vol.  IV,  p.  663. 


*  2 

o  a 

o  H 

2  W 

3  O 

M  O 


292  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

equal  footing  with  the  original  States  in  all  respects  whatever,  and  shall 
be  at  liberty  to  form  a  permanent  constitution  and  State  government.6 

Had  this  line  been  adhered  to  as  a  boundary,  the  people 
dwelling  in  part  of  Toledo,  in  Painesville,  Ashtabula,  Conneaut, 
and  Jefferson,  Ohio,  and  those  in  Michigan  City,  South  Bend, 
Mishawaka,  Elkhart,  LaGrange,  and  Angola,  Indiana,  would 
be  living  in  Michigan;  those  in  East  Chicago  and  Whiting, 
Indiana,  and  in  Chicago,  Elgin,  Aurora,  Dixon,  and  Freeport, 
Illinois,  would  be  living  in  Wisconsin.  Again,  had  the  line  laid 
down  in  the  Ordinance  of  1787  been  held  inviolable  as  a 
boundary,  neither  Indiana  nor  Illinois  would  have  had  a  foot  of 
frontage  on  any  one  of  the  Great  Lakes ;  Michigan  and  Wis- 
consin would  have  been  disproportionately  large ;  Michigan 
would  have  owned  a  triangle  on  the  southern  shore  of  Lake 
Erie  wholly  disconnected  from  the  parent  state. 

The  entire  area  was  organized  and  governed  as  one  territory 
until  the  Act  of  May  13,  1800  provided  for  the  organization  of 
the  western  part  as  Indiana  Territory,  the  eastern  part  (includ- 
ing the  future  state  of  Ohio)  retaining  the  name  of  Northwest 
Territory.  Ohio  entered  the  Union  in  1802.  When  Congress 
passed  the  Enabling  Act  for  this  state,  Section  2  provided  that 
it  should  be  bounded  "on  the  north  by  an  east  and  west  line, 
drawn  through  the  southerly  extreme  of  Lake  Michigan," 
which  line  we  shall  hereafter  speak  of  as  the  Ordinance  Line.7 
Its  exact  latitude  was  at  that  time  unknown ;  some  considerable 
settlements  had  grown  up  where  Toledo  now  stands,  at  the 
mouth  of  the  Maumee  River ;  prominent  citizens  and  real  estate 
men  had  planned  a  canal  from  Cincinnati  to  enter  Lake  Erie 
at  this  point,  believing  it  to  be  within  the  state  of  Ohio.  The 
story  is  told  that  when  the  constitutional  convention  was  pre- 
paring the  constitution  of  Ohio,  a  veteran  trapper  informed  the 


6Kettleborough,  Charles,  Constitution  Making  in  Indiana,  Vol.  I, 
PP.  32-33  (Indiana  Historical  Collections,  Indianapolis,  1916)  ;  Macdon- 
ald,  William  (ed.),  Documentary  Source  Book  of  American  History, 
1606-1926,  pp.  215-16  (New  York,  1926). 

''Annals,  7  Congress,  1  session,  col.  1349;  see  also  Sherman,  C.  E., 
The  Ohio-Michigan  Boundary,  p.  16  (Ohio  Co-operative  Topographic 
Survey,  Vol.  I,  Ohio  State  Reformatory  Press,  1916). 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  293 

delegates  that  in  reality  the  mouth  of  the  Maumee  River  lay 
much  farther  north  than  had  been  supposed.8  Accordingly 
Article  VII  of  Ohio's  constitution  contained  the  proviso  that 
the  state  should  be  bounded  as  follows: 

On  the  north  by  an  east  and  west  line  drawn  through  the  southerly 
extreme  of  Lake  Michigan  .  .  .  provided  always  and  it  is  hereby  fully 
understood  and  declared  by  this  convention,  that  if  the  southerly  bend 
or  extreme  of  Lake  Michigan  should  extend  so  far  south  that  a  line 
drawn  due  east  from  it  should  not  intersect  Lake  Erie,  or  if  it  should 
intersect  the  said  Lake  Erie  east  of  the  mouth  of  the  Miami  River  of 
the  Lake,  then  in  that  case,  with  the  assent  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  the  northern  boundary  of  this  state  shall  be  established 
by,  and  extending  to,  a  direct  line  running  from  the  southern  extremity 
of  Lake  Michigan  to  the  most  northerly  cape  of  the  Miami  Bay.9 

The  territory  north  of  the  Ordinance  Line  was  organized 
under  Indiana  Territory.10  Michigan  Territory  was  separated 
from  Indiana  in  1805  ;  Section  1  of  the  Act  provided  that  it 
was  to  consist  of  "all  that  part  of  the  Indiana  Territory  which 
lies  north  of  a  line  drawn  east  from  the  southerly  bend  or 
extreme,  of  Lake  Michigan."11  After  the  official  survey  of  the 
line,  Michigan  continued  to  exercise  her  former  jurisdiction 
over  the  populous  towns  and  villages  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Maumee — which  were  claimed  by  Ohio — until  she  entered  the 
Union  in  1837. 

In  1811  the  territorial  legislature  of  Indiana  petitioned 
Congress  to  advance  the  territory  to  statehood.  Upon  the 
recommendation  of  a  special  committee  the  national  House  of 
Representatives  passed  a  resolution,  March  31,  1812,  that  this 
should  be  done  whenever  the  "population  of  its  Federal  num- 
bers" amounted  to  35,000.  Under  the  direction  of  the  terri- 
torial legislature  a  census  was  taken  in  1815  which  showed  a 
population  in  the  thirteen  organized  counties  of  63,897.12    Ac- 


8Burnet,  Jacob,  Notes  on  the  Early  Settlement  of  the  Northwestern 
Territory,  p.  360  (Cincinnati,  1847)  ;  see  also  Committee  Reports,  23  Con- 
gress, 1  session,  No.  334,  p.  41. 

9Sherman,  The  Ohio-Michigan  Boundary,  p.  16. 

10 Appeal  by  the  Convention  of  Michigan,  p.  37  (Detroit,  1835). 

^Annals,  8  Congress,  2  session,  col.  1659.  The  italics  are  the  author's. 

12Ibid.,  14  Congress,  1  session,  col.  460. 


294  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

cordingly  a  formal  petition  was  adopted  by  the  territorial 
legislature  on  December  11,  1815  asking  for  the  admission  of 
Indiana  to  the  Union  and  stipulating  certain  grants  and  provi- 
sions desired  from  the  federal  government.13  This  was  pre- 
sented to  the  national  House  of  Representatives  on  December 
28,  1815  by  Jonathan  Jennings,  the  territorial  delegate.14  The 
petition  was  referred  to  a  committee  composed  of  Jonathan 
Jennings,  Samuel  McKee,  Bennett  H.  Henderson,  John  Reed, 
and  Hosea  Moffit.15 

A  week  later,  January  5,  Jennings  reported  a  bill  to  enable 
the  people  of  Indiana  Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  state 
government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  state  into  the  Union. 
His  accompanying  report  set  out  the  Ordinance  Line  as  the 
northern  boundary  line.  The  bill  was  read  twice  and  referred 
to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House.16  On  March  29  the  House 
sat  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  consideration  of  the  bill. 
A  variety  of  amendments  were  reported  and  successively  agreed 
to,  and  the  bill  as  amended  was  ordered  engrossed  for  third 
reading.17  On  March  30  the  engrossed  bill  was  read  the  third 
time  and  passed  by  a  vote  of  108  ayes — 3  nays ;  those  voting 
adversely  being  Representatives  Charles  Goldsborough,  of 
Maryland,  and  Joseph  Lewis  and  John  Randolph,  of  Virginia.18 

Meantime,  on  January  2,  the  memorial  of  the  Legislative 
Council  and  House  of  Representatives  of  Indiana  Territory 
had  been  communicated  by  the  President  to  the  Senate,  and 
referred  to  a  committee  consisting  of  Jeremiah  Morrow,  of 
Ohio,  William  T.  Barry,  of  Kentucky,  and  James  Brown,  of 
Louisiana.19    Nothing  seems  to  have  been  done,  however,  until 


13For  a  chronological  summary  of  the  procedure  of  Congress  in  re- 
gard to  the  Indiana  Enabling  Act,  see  Appendix  I. 

14An  account  of  these  proceedings,  with  the  documents,  is  given  in 
Kettleborough,  Constitution  Making  in  Indiana,  Vol.  I,  pp.  65ft". 

15Annals,  14  Congress,  1  session,  col.  408. 

1QIbid.,  cols.  459-60.  ^Ibid.,  col.  1293. 

18Ibid.,  col.  1300.  19Ibid.,  col.  31. 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  295 

the  Senate  received  the  House  bill  on  March  30.20  On  April  1 
the  House  bill  was  read  once  and  passed  to  second  reading.21 

Up  to  the  present  writing,  it  has  been  impossible  to  obtain 
accurate  information  as  to  the  text  of  the  amendments  which 
were  passed  by  the  House.  We  are  hopeful  that  these  may  yet 
be  discovered.  Let  us  pause,  therefore,  to  compare  the  text  of 
the  bill  (H.  R.  24)  which  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  on 
April  1  with  the  report  when  the  bill  was  originally  introduced 
in  the  House.  To  our  astonishment,  we  find  that  one  of  the 
amendments  "agreed  to,"  must  have  dealt  with  our  northern 
boundary  line,  for  this  line  is  now  described  as  "the  forty- 
second  degree  of  north  latitude."22 

On  April  2  the  bill  was  read  a  second  time  in  the  Senate 
and  referred  to  the  committee  on  the  memorial  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  Mississippi  Territory.23  On  April  3  it  was  ordered 
on  motion  by  Senator  Jeremiah  Morrow  that  the  committee  to 
whom  the  bill  was  referred  be  discharged  and  that  it  be  referred 
to  the  committee  appointed  January  2  on  the  memorial  of  the 
Legislative  Council  and  House  of  Representatives  of  Indiana 
Territory.24  This  committee  consisted  of  Senator  Morrow, 
chairman,  Senators  William  T.  Barry  and  James  Brown.  The 
following  day  the  bill  was  reported  out  of  committee,  with 
amendments.  25  One  of  the  three  amendments  defined  the  boun- 
daries as  finally  adopted.  It  provided  that  Indiana  should  be 
bounded 


On  the  east  by  the  meridian  line  which  forms  the  western  boundary 
of  the  State  of  Ohio;  on  the  south  by  the  river  Ohio,  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Great  Miami  river  to  the  mouth  of  the  river  Wabash;  on  the 
west  by  a  line  drawn  along  the  middle  of  the  Wabash  from  its  mouth, 
to  a  point  where  a  due  north  line,  drawn  from  the  town  of  Vincennes, 
would  last  touch  the  northwestern  shore  of  the  said  river;  and  from 
thence,  by  a  due  north  line,  until  the  same  shall  intersect  an  east  and 
west  line,  drawn  through  a  point  ten  miles  north  of  the  southern  extreme 


20Ibid.,  col.  255.  21Ibid.,  col.  256. 

22See  Appendix  II. 

23Annals,  14  Congress,  1  session,  col.  274.     See  Appendix  I. 
2*Ibid.,  col.  278.  25Ibid.,  col.  282. 


296  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

of  Lake  Michigan;  on  the  north  by  the  said  east  and  west  line,  until 
the  same  shall  intersect  the  first  mentioned  meridian  line  which  forms 
the  western  boundary  of  the  State  of  Ohio.26 

On  April  12  the  Senate  sat  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  to 
consider  the  bill  with  amendments  and  the  "bill  having  been 
amended,  the  President  reported  it  to  the  House,  accordingly."27 
The  next  day,  April  13,  it  was  reported  correctly  engrossed, 
read  a  third  time  as  amended,  and  passed.28  On  April  15  the 
amendments  proposed  by  the  Senate  were  read  in  the  House 
and  concurred  in.29 

It  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  in  pushing  this  boundary 
line  northward  our  forefathers  were  actuated  by  the  desire  to 
secure  for  Indiana  a  foothold  on  Lake  Michigan,  with  its  com- 
mercial advantages.  How  great  a  part  our  rivers  played  in 
settling  these  boundary  lines  may  be  seen  from  a  statement  of 
Senator  William  Hendricks,  that  "One  object  which  Indiana 
had  in  going  north  of  the  east  and  west  line,  so  often  men- 
tioned, was,  that  she  might  include  the  mouth  of  the  St.  Joseph 
river,  and  have  a  harbor  there  on  the  lake.  In  that  she  has 
been  defeated."30  As  late  as  December,  1833  we  find  Represen- 
tative John  Ewing,  of  Indiana,  pressing  this  point,  with  the 
introduction  into  the  House  of  Representatives  of  a  resolution 
asking : 

That  the  Committee  on  the  Territories  be  instructed  to  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  extending  the  northern  boundary  of  the  State  of 
Indiana,  so  as  to  embrace  a  slight  tract  of  land  (now  attached  to  the 
Territory  of  Michigan)  south  of  the  St.  Joseph's  river,  so  as  to  render 
said  river  the  boundary  line  from  its  junction  with  Lake  Michigan,  and 
allow  concurrent  jurisdiction  to  Indiana  at  its  mouth.31 

It  has  been  impossible  to  determine  what  motive  could  have 
led  Jonathan  Jennings  to  willingly  accept,  as  he  seems  to  have 
done,  the  change  to  the  boundary  line  of  42°  north  latitude.    To 


26 Annuls,  14  Congress,  1  session,  col.  1841. 

^Ibid.,  col.  312.  2*Ibid.,  col.  315-  ™Ibid.,  col.  1373- 

30Esarey,  Logan  (ed.),  Messages  and  Papers  of  Jonathan  Jennings, 
Ratliff  Boon,  William  Hendricks,  p.  432  (Indiana  Historical  Collections, 
Vol.  XII,  Indianapolis,  1924). 

zlHouse  Journal,  23  Congress,  1  session,  p.  106. 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  297 

be  sure,  this  provision  would  eventually  have  added  a  twenty- 
five  mile  strip  instead  of  a  ten  mile  strip.  It  must  be  concluded 
that  Jennings  had  arranged  the  change  for  this  very  reason. 
If  this  supposition  be  correct,  he  must  have  had  "inside"  infor- 
mation, probably  from  Ohio  citizens,  as  to  the  true  location, 
for  an  examination  of  the  maps  of  that  period  reveals  the 
greatest  ignorance  of  this  area  and  places  Lake  Michigan  far 
north  of  its  present  location,  so  that  an  acceptance  of  this  line 
would  have  meant  an  apparent  relinquishment  of  approximately 
a  twenty-five  mile  strip  of  territory  which  Indiana  could  claim 
under  the  Ordinance  Line.  A  very  detailed  map  of  this  area 
was  drawn  by  John  Mitchell  in  1755 ;  it  was  "repeatedly  repro- 
duced, widely  used  and  long  deemed  to  be  an  authority."32 
This  locates  the  southern  extreme  of  Lake  Michigan  at  42°  20' 
north  latitude.  We  find,  also,  that  such  maps  as  the  Vaugondy 
(1755),  the  Longchamps  (1756),  the  Giissefeld  (1784),  the 
Thos.  Jefferys  (1762),  the  Mentelle  (1806),  the  Faden  (1785), 
the  Hutchins  (1778),  disclose  that  this  line  was  thought  to  be 
at  least  42°  10'  or  higher,  and  some  even  place  it  north  of 
42°  30'.  The  map  of  the  United  States  by  John  Cary,  1806,  a 
section  of  which  is  reproduced  in  the  plate  facing  page  298, 
shows  the  southern  tip  of  Lake  Michigan  north  of  42°.  A  map 
by  Barker  in  1805  shows  a  line  drawn  through  the  southern 
extremity  of  Lake  Michigan  and  places  it  as  high  as  42°  30'. 
Maps  of  the  United  States  made  by  Lewis  in  1815  and  by 
Vance  as  late  as  1818  show  the  same  error  and  picture  Lake 
Michigan  at  least  one  half  degree  of  latitude  too  far  north.33 
Surely  there  was  every  reason  and  every  opportunity  for  Jona- 
than Jennings  to  have  obtained  every  advantage   for  Indiana, 


32Schlesinger,  Arthur  M.,  "Basis  of  the  Ohio-Michigan  Boundary 
Dispute,"  Ohio  Co-operative  Topographic  Survey,  Vol.  I,  p.  6o.  See 
also  Committee  Reports,  23  Congress,  1  session,  No.  334,  p.  41. 

33Maps,  Indiana  State  Library;  Committee  Reports,  23  Congress,  1 
session,  No.  334,  p.  41.  The  official  survey  of  the  northern  boundary  of 
Indiana  as  finally  decided  upon  and  of  the  latitude  of  the  southern  ex- 
tremity of  Lake  Michigan,  made  by  E.  P.  Kendrick  in  October,  1827, 
shows  the  former  to  be  41  °  47'  43",  and  the  latter  41  °  38'  58".  Trac- 
ing by  George  A.  Baker  in  Indiana  State  Library. 


298  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

and  although  we  have  no  proof,  we  are  forced  to  believe  that 
he  had  some  first-hand  information  from  trappers  and  hunters 
which  formed  the  basis  for  the  amendments  passed  in  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

Whether  Senator  Morrow,  of  Ohio,  was  more  familiar  with 
the  maps  of  that  age  and  believed  that  the  line  42°  was  not 
sufficiently  well  determined  to  be  a  safe  boundary,  or  whether 
he  was  selfishly  interested  in  making  sure  that  the  Ordinance 
Line  would  be  broken  by  the  admission  of  Indiana,  and  thus 
strengthen  Ohio  in  her  controversy  with  Michigan,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  determine.  We  must  think  that  he  had  a  personal  inter- 
est in  our  Enabling  Act,  for  we  have  noted  that  he  was 
instrumental  in  having  the  Senate  bill,  which  was  originally 
referred  to  his  committee,  transferred  back  to  it  when  it  had 
been  accidentally  referred,  together  with  other  bills,  to  a  differ- 
ent committee. 

At  any  rate,  Michigan  statesmen  credit  Jennings  with  being 
responsible  for  the  change.  Lucius  Lyon  even  goes  so  far  as 
to  accuse  our  delegate  of  deliberately  keeping  the  question  in 
the  background,  saying: 

Jonathan  Jennings,  then  Delegate  from  the  Territory  of  Indiana, 
was  made  chairman  of  the  select  committee  to  whom  the  subject  of  the 
admission  of  that  State  into  the  Union  was  referred ;  and  being  thus 
placed  in  a  situation  to  exert  a  controlling  influence,  the  committee  seem 
to  have  paid  about  as  much  attention  to  the  rights  involved  in  the  ques- 
tion which  they  were  then  considering,  as  was  afterward  given  to  similar 
rights,  on  the  admission  of  Illinois,  before  spoken  of.  It  is  true  that, 
on  the  5th  January,  1816,  Mr.  Jennings  made  a  short  report  on  the 
subject  referred  to  the  committee;  but  in  that  report  the  boundary 
described  in  the  proviso  of  the  fifth  article  of  the  ordinance  of  1787 
is  kept  wholly  out  of  view,  and  not  even  alluded  to. 

The  chairman,  who  doubtless  wrote  the  report  which  he  submitted 
to  the  House,  seems  to  have  been  conscious  that  even  to  name  this 
proviso  of  the  ordinance  would  call  too  much  attention  to  it,  to  suit 
the  interests  of  Indiana,  and  therefore  the  whole  subject  was  studiously 
avoided.34 

In  justice  to  Mr.  Jennings  it  should  be  pointed  out  that  this 
accusation  by  Mr.  Lyon  is  unfair,  for  Jennings'  report  of 
January  5  could  not  have  mentioned  changes  in  the  boundary 


^Committee  Reports,  23  Congress,  1  session,  No.  334,  p.  20. 


[From  John   Cary's   Map   of  the   United   States,    1806] 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  299 

line  that  were  not  proposed  until  March  29.    Claude  Larzelere, 
of  Michigan,  who  has  made  a  study  of  the  controversy,  states : 

The  change  met  with  no  opposition  in  Congress.  The  only  man 
interested  was  the  delegate  from  Indiana  and  he  was  chairman  of  the 
committee  that  arranged  the  boundaries.35 

On  April  16  Jennings  himself  wrote  a  letter  to  his  "Fellow 
Citizens,"  which  was  published  in  the  Vincennes  Western  Sun. 
He  makes  no  statement  bearing  directly  on  the  boundary 
change,  but  refers  to  the  Enabling  Act  as  follows : 

With  regard  to  the  grants  and  conditions  contained  in  this  act,  the 
convention  when  met  will  be  able  to  form  a  correct  estimate.  Allow  me, 
however  to  state  that  they  are  at  least  as  advantageous  if  not  more  so, 
than  those  granted  to  any  other  Territory  on  similar  occasions.36 

Two  clauses  in  the  Enabling  Act  passed  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  (H.  R.  24)  may  have  significance  as  revelations 
of  Jennings'  idea  that  he  had  secured  an  advantageous  boundary 
which  needed  express  sanction  in  view  of  provisions  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1787.  In  Section  2  it  was  provided,  "that  the 
convention  hereinafter  provided  for,  when  formed,  shall  ratify 
the  boundaries  aforesaid,  otherwise  they  shall  be  and  remain 
as  now  prescribed  by  the  ordinance  for  the  government  of  the 
Territory  north-west  of  the  River  Ohio."  Section  4  provides 
that  the  constitution  of  Indiana  shall  be  "not  repugnant"  to 
those  articles  of  the  ordinance  of  1787  "which  are  declared  to 
be  irrevocable  between  the  original  States  and  the  people  and 
States  of  the  Territory  north-west  of  the  River  Ohio,  excepting 
so  much  of  said  articles  as  relate  to  the  boundaries  of  the 
States  therein  to  be  formed."  These  clauses  show  that  the 
author  of  the  bill  considered  the  northern  boundary  specified 
in  it  to  be  something  in  the  nature  of  an  amendment  to  the 
Ordinance  of  1787. 

The  change  aroused  no  comment  favorable  or  unfavorable 
on  the  part  of  Hoosiers.  The  Vincennes  Western  Sun  of  1816 
followed  the  discussion  and  progress  of  the  bill,  and  published 


35Larzelere,  "Boundaries  of  Michigan,"  p.  17. 
^Western  Sun,  May  11,  181 6. 


300  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

it  as  passed,  but  without  comment,  possibly  because  there  was 
little  editorial  comment  on  current  topics  in  the  press  of  that 
early  day.37  It  has  not  been  possible  to  find  any  words  of 
commendation  or  criticism  in  the  contemporaneous  letters, 
papers,  or  speeches  to  which  we  have  had  access.  As  soon  as 
the  change  came  to  be  known,  the  Territorial  Council  of  Michi- 
gan made  a  protest,  but  it  was  a  mere  matter  of  form.  Two 
causes  undoubtedly  contributed  to  this  lack  of  interest:  first, 
Michigan  had  no  territorial  delegate  in  Congress  at  this  time; 
and  second,  the  area  was  entirely  undeveloped.  L.  G.  Stuart,  in 
discussing  this  matter,  points  out  the  absence  of  commercial 
enterprise  in  the  area.    He  says : 

Indiana  had  no  extensive  canal  system  with  an  outlet  within  the  terri- 
tory claimed.  She  had  no  prospectively  valuable  town  sites  in  the  dis- 
trict. None  of  the  members  of  the  constitutional  convention  were 
incorporators  or  stockholders  in  railroads  projected  into  the  ten  mile 
Indiana  strip.38 

The  Enabling  Act  for  Indiana  had  stipulated  that  the  con- 
vention for  drawing  up  a  state  government,  when  formed, 
should  ratify  the  boundaries  aforesaid,  otherwise  they  were  to 
remain  "as  .  .  .  prescribed  by  the  ordinance  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio."39  We  find 
that  this  convention,  on  Saturday,  June  22,  1816,  passed  the 
resolution,  which  follows  in  part,  presented  by  James  Dill, 
chairman  of  the  committee  relative  to  the  propositions  of  Con- 
gress and  the  boundaries  of  the  state  :40 

"Resolved,  By  the  people  of  the  state  of  hidiana,"  by  their  repre- 
sentatives in  convention  met  at  Corydon,  on  Monday  the  tenth  day  of 
June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  eighteen  hundred  and  sixteen,  that  we 
do,  for  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  agree,  determine,  declare,  and  ordain, 
that  we  will,  and  do  hereby,  accept  the  propositions  of  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  as  made  and  contained  in  their  act  of  the  nineteenth 


37 'Western  Sun,  April  20,  27,  and  May  4,  1816. 

38Stuart,  L.  G.,  "Verdict  for  Michigan.  How  the  Upper  Peninsula 
became  a  part  of  Michigan,"  Michigan  Historical  Collections,  Vol. 
XXVII,  p.  398. 

36 'Annals,  14  Congress,  1   session,  eol.  1841. 

40The  Committee  consisted  of  James  Dill  and  Solomon  Manwaring, 
of  Dearborn;  William  H.  Eads,  of  Franklin;  James  Smith,  of  Gibson; 
Daniel  C.  Lane,  of   Harrison. 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  301 

day  of  April,  eighteen  hundred  and  sixteen,  entitled,  "an  act  to  enable 
the  people  of  Indiana  territory  to  form  a  state  government  and  con- 
stitution, and  for  the  admission  of  such  state  into  the  Union  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  original  states :"  And  we  do  further,  for  our- 
selves and  our  posterity,  hereby  ratify,  confirm  and  establish,  the 
boundaries  of  the  said  state  of  Indiana,  as  fixed,  prescribed,  laid  down, 
and  established,  in  the  Act  of  Congress  aforesaid.41 

It  is  of  interest  to  note,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  that  Indi- 
ana had  power  to  refuse  to  ratify  these  boundaries  and  demand 
the  entire  middle  third  of  the  Northwest  Territory  and  that 
Congress  had  the  power  to  annex  this  north  central  area  to 
Indiana  any  time  before  Michigan  was  admitted  to  the  Union.42 

The  resolution  admitting  Indiana  to  statehood  passed  the 
Senate  on  December  6,  1816  and  the  House  on  December  9. 
It  was  signed  by  the  President  on  December  11,  1816.  It 
declared  that  the  people  of  Indiana  had  conformed  with  the 
"principles  of  the  articles  of  compact  between  the  original 
States  and  the  people  and  States  to  be  formed  in  the  Territory 
Northwest  of  the  River  Ohio."43 

On  March  2,  1827  the  President  was  authorized  "to  ascer- 
tain and  designate  the  northern  boundary  of  the  state  of  Indi- 
ana," and  in  pursuance  of  this  act,  the  survey  of  1827  was 
officially  made.44  The  exact  latitude  of  the  line  was  still  un- 
known, for  we  find  Congress  asking  for  this  line  to  be  deter- 
mined in  1828,  and  again  in  1832.45 

Illinois  followed  Indiana  into  statehood  in  1818,  with  a 
boundary  sixty  miles  north  of  the  Ordinance  Line,  and  extend- 
ing to  42°  30'  north  latitude.  This  added  8,500  square  miles 
of  territory  to  her  dominion.  At  this  time  all  the  northern 
land  was  organized  as  Michigan  Territory. 

As  we  have  before  stated,  Michigan  made  a  formal  protest 
against  the  infringement  of  her  southern  boundary  by  Indiana 


41Journal  of  the  Convention  of  the  Indiana  Territory,  pp.  49-50 
(Louisville,   1816). 

42Senate  Documents,  24  Congress,  1  session,  No.  211,  pp.  10-11. 

*sAnnals,  14  Congress,  2  session,  col.  1348. 

44Esarey  (ed.),  Messages  and  Papers  of  Jennings,  Boon,  Hendricks, 
p.  430. 

45 Appeal  by  the  Convention  of  Michigan,  pp.  23-24. 


302  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

and  Ohio.    A  memorial  was  addressed  to  Congress,  January  3, 
1818;  in  reviewing  the  subject  the  memorial  states: 

Your  memorialists  conceive  it  their  duty,  vested  as  they  are  with 
the  temporary  legislative  power  of  this  territory,  to  submit  this  subject 
to  the  consideration  of  Congress.  They  do  not  presume  to  request  that 
any  particular  course  may  be  pursued  in  relation  to  it.  They  are  anxious 
that  the  just  rights  of  the  people  of  this  territory  may  not  be  forfeited 
through  their  neglect,  and  that  it  may  not  be  hereafter  supposed  they 
have  acquiesced  in  the  changes  which  have  been,  and  which  are  proposed 
to  be  made  in  its  boundaries.  To  some  future  period,  when  the  people 
of  this  country  can  be  heard  by  their  own  Representatives  in  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  Union,  they  leave  the  further  discussion  and  final  decision 
of  these  questions,  which  will  vitally  affect  their  political  importance.46 

For  more  than  ten  years  the  boundary  dispute  between 
Indiana  and  Michigan  seems  to  have  received  no  attention  on 
the  part  of  either.  Then  we  note  that  Lucius  Lyon,  terri- 
torial delegate  from  Michigan,  asked  Congress  not  only  "to 
resist  all  attempts  at  further  encroachment,  but  also  to  restore 
to  her  all  the  territory  so  solemnly  guarantied  to  her  by  that 
irrepealable  law."47  Governor  Lewis  Cass,  in  his  message  of 
January,  1831  stated: 

Indiana  asserts  and  exercises  jurisdiction  over  a  tract  of  country, 
ten  miles  north  of  our  southern  boundary,  as  defined  in  that  irrepealable 
law,  which  gave  and  guarantees  to  us  our  political  existence,  and  extend- 
ing from  Lake  Michigan  east,  along  the  whole  northern  frontier  of 
that  state.  That  this  claim  will  eventually  be  contested  on  the  part  of 
this  Territory,  or  of  the  State,  which  must  soon  be  established  here, 
there  is  no  doubt.  And  as  we  have  every  confidence  in  the  justice  of 
our  cause,  we  may  reasonably  look  forward  to  a  favorable  decision.  As 
however  the  rights  of  the  parties  rest  upon  conflicting  acts  of  Congress, 
and  as  Indiana  has  possession  of  the  tract  in  question,  a  prudent  regard 
to  circumstances  will  probably  dictate  a  postponement  of  the  subject, 
until  we  shall  be  admitted  to  a  participation  in  the  council  of  the 
tribunal,  by  which  it  must  be  determined.48 

The  next  official  action  taken  by  the  Legislative  Council  of 
the  Territory  of  Michigan,  was  the  passage  of  an  act  approved 
December  26,  1834.  This  act  provided  for  the  appointment  of 
three  commissioners  by  the  governor  of  the  Territory  of  Mich- 


46 Appeal  by  the  Convention  of  Michigan,  pp.  39-40- 
^Committee  Reports,  23  Congress,  1  session,  No.  334,  p.  29. 
48Fuller,  George  N.   (ed.),  Messages  of  the  Governors  of  Michigan, 
Vol.  I,  p.  60  (Lansing,  1925). 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  303 

igan,  "to  enter  into  a  negotiation  with  such  commissioners  as 
may  be  appointed  on  the  part  of  the  states  of  Ohio,  Indiana, 
or  Illinois,  or  with  the  Governors  of  those  states,  to  adjust  and 
finally  settle  the  northern  boundary  of  the  said  states.49  A 
copy  of  this  act  was  evidently  sent  to  the  governors  of  the 
three  states  mentioned.  A  message  from  Governor  Lucas  to 
the  legislature  of  Ohio  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  the  com- 
munication, and  advised  the  legislature  that  Michigan  had  not 
been  admitted  to  the  Union,  that  Congress  alone  had  the  power 
to  determine  the  boundaries  of  territories ;  hence  such  a  com- 
mission as  was  proposed  by  Michigan  would  be  without  power 
to  act.50  A  memorial  of  the  Legislative  Council  of  Michigan, 
adopted  March  23,  1835,  expressly  stated: 

We  do  not,  at  this  time,  present  for  consideration  our  claims  con- 
nected with  the  boundaries  of  Indiana  and  Illinois.  They  will  be  brought 
forward  at  a  future  day,  and  under  different  circumstances.  But  those 
cases  furnish  no  parallel  for  the  proceedings  of  the  state  of  Ohio. 
Congress,  by  its  own  authority,  enlarged  their  territorial  extent.  We 
contend  that  such  enlargement  was  invalid,  because  conflicting  with  the 
irrepealable  articles  of  compact.  But  those  states  hold  the  territory 
alluded  to  under  the  acts  admitting  them  into  the  union.  They  have 
always  possessed  jurisdiction  over  the  country,  and  if  we  are  ever  to 
obtain  possession  of  it,  it  must  be  by  judicial  decision,  or  by  commis- 
sioners already,  or  to  be  hereafter,  appointed.  But  Ohio  claims  to  do 
by  her  own  authority  what  Congress  has  done  for  Indiana  and  Illinois.51 

Michigan  based  her  claim  to  the  disputed  area  on  her  belief 
that  the  Ordinance  Line  was  an  immovable  boundary.  She 
asserted  that  it  had  been  established  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787, 
and  later  confirmed  by  the  Enabling  Act  for  Ohio,  by  the 
transfer  of  the  northern  part  of  the  remaining  territory  to 
Indiana  Territory  and  finally  by  the  act  establishing  her  own 
Territory,  in  each  of  which  cases  this  Ordinance  Line  was 
expressly  used  by  Congress  as  a  boundary  line.  She  further 
asserted  that  repeated  attempts  on  the  part  of  Ohio  had  failed 
to  induce  Congress  to  change  the  line.     In  regard  to  Indiana 


49 Appeal  by  the  Convention  of  Michigan,  pp.  145-46.     See  Appen- 
dix III. 

50Ibid.,  pp.  146-48.  51Ibid,,  pp.  110-11. 


304  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

she  claimed  that  since  this  Enabling  Act  was  passed  in  contro- 
version to  the  above  mentioned  acts  it  must  be  null  and  void. 

Whatever  the  intention  of  the  men  in  Congress  may  have 
been  in  1787,  the  text  of  the  Ordinance  itself  offered  a  techni- 
cality for  setting  it  aside.  It  contains  the  provision :  "If  Con- 
gress shall  hereafter  find  it  expedient,  they  shall  have  authority 
to  form  one  or  two  States  in  that  part  of  the  said  territory 
which  lies  north  of  an  east  and  west  line  drawn  through  the 
southerly  bend  or  extreme  of  Lake  Michigan."62  Our  own  Sen- 
ator William  Hendricks  ably  pointed  out  in  his  debates  in  Con- 
gress that:  "Congress  is  indeed  prohibited  from  coming,  with 
the  northern  boundaries  of  these  three  states,  south  of  this  east 
and  west  line,  but  she  may  go  as  far  north  of  that  line  as  shall 
be  deemed  expedient,  even  to  the  boundary  of  the  United 
States."63 

Samuel  F.  Vinton,  of  Ohio,  likewise  asserted :  "If  the 
phrase  had  been,  'shall  have  authority  to  form  one  or  two  States 
of  that  part  of  said  territory/  the  word  of,  in  the  same  context, 
would  have  been  a  denial  of  all  discretion  over  the  limits  of  the 
State  or  States  to  be  formed.  In  the  latter  case,  the  State  or 
States  must  have  embraced  the  whole  country,  to  satisfy  the 
terms  used."64  Representative  John  M.  Clayton,  in  his  report 
to  Congress,  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
March  1,  1836,  agreed  with  this  view,  and  stated  emphatically: 
"A  power  to  form  one  'or  two  States  in  a  territory'  is  not  to  be 
restricted,  without  the  grossest  violence  to  all  the  rules  of  con- 
struction, to  a  mere  power  to  form  one  or  two  States  out  of  that 
territory."56 

Michigan  claimed  also  that  the  Ordinance  was  a  compact, 
which  could  be  changed  only  by  common  consent,  and  that  she 
had  never  given  her  consent  to  such  a  change.  John  Fiske  has 
asserted  that  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  no  more  nor  less  than 


52Macdonald,  Documentary  Source  Book,  pp.  215-16.  The  italics 
are  the  author's. 

53Esarey  (ed.),  Messages  and  Papers  of  Jennings,  Boon,  Hen- 
dricks, p.  432. 

^Committee  Reports,  23  Congress,  1  session,  No.  334,  p.  55- 

65Senate  Documents,  24  Congress,  1  session,  No.  211,  p.  6. 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  305 

any  other  act  of  Congress,  because  there  was  no  second  party 
to  it;  it  was  not  ratified  by  the  states.56  It  was  amended  by 
the  next  ensuing  Congress,  August  7,  1789,  in  the  matter  of 
the  appointment  of  territorial  officials.57  The  Ordinance  pro- 
vided for  its  change  by  common  consent,  which  must  have 
meant  either  the  consent  of  our  representatives  in  Congress  or 
the  consent  of  the  majority  of  the  people  dwelling  in  the  area 
involved.  In  either  case,  consent  was  undoubtedly  secured 
when  the  people  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  ratified  their 
state  constitutions  providing  boundaries  for  these  states  other 
than  the  Ordinance  Line.58  Senator  John  Tipton  is  credited 
with  having  written: 

This  was  a  proposition  made  by  the  United  States  in  Congress 
assembled,  to  the  people  of  Indiana  and  Illinois,  and  accepted  by  the 
people  of  these  new  states  in  their  highest  attribute  of  sovereignty,  their 
constitution-making  capacity.  Hence  no  power  other  than  the  people 
themselves  can  abrogate  the  compact  thus  entered  into.59 

Although  this  article  is  merely  signed  "Peace  and  Union," 
the  belief  that  Tipton  was  the  author  is  borne  out  by  a  letter 
from  Thomas  Fitzgerald,  of  St.  Joseph,  Michigan,  dated  April 
24,  1835,  to  John  Tipton,  to  whom  the  latter  had  sent  a  copy 
of  the  paper.60 

Michigan  founded  her  claim,  also,  on  the  act  of  Congress 
establishing  her  territorial  boundaries  in  1805,  in  accordance 
with  which  she  had  organized  and  held  jurisdiction  over  part 
of  the  disputed  territory. 

Ohio,  on  the  other  hand,  asserted  that  she  had  been  admitted 
with  a  proviso  for  the  change  in  her  boundary,  but  we  should 
point  out  that  this  change,  as  before  stated,  was  to  be  effected 
"with  the  assent  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States."  Ohio 
was  then  concerned  to  ascertain  the  exact  location  of  the  mouth 


5flFiske,  John,  The  Critical  Period  of  American  History,  1783-1789, 
pp.  206-7  (Riverside  Press,  1888). 

67 Annals,  1  Congress,  col.  2159. 

68The  census  of  1830  showed  Michigan's  population  to  be  31,639, 
while    the    combined    population    of    Ohio,    Indiana,    and    Illinois    was 

M38,379. 

69Logansport  Canal  Telegraph,  April  4,  1835. 
60Tipton  Papers,  Indiana  State  Library. 


306  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

of  the  Maumee  River  in  relation  to  the  Ordinance  Line  and,  if 
necessary,  to  secure  the  assent  of  Congress  to  the  change. 
Undoubtedly  the  spirited  controversy  with  Ohio  over  the  pos- 
session of  the  mouth  of  the  Maumee  River  prevented  Michigan 
from  pressing  her  claim  against  Indiana.  This  quarrel  with 
Ohio  is  designated  in  history  as  the  "Toledo  War,"  or,  by  the 
people  of  Michigan,  as  "Governor  Lucas'  War." 

In  1812  Congress  gave  authority  for  an  official  survey  of 
the  Ordinance  Line.  Because  of  the  war  with  England,  the 
survey  was  not  undertaken  until  1817,  when  a  surveyor  marked 
the  so-called  Harris  Line.  It  was  soon  discovered  that  William 
Harris,  instead  of  marking  the  Ordinance  Line,  had  marked 
the  line  Ohio  claimed  as  her  northern  boundary.  A  protest 
from  Michigan  compelled  the  President  to  order  a  second  sur- 
vey, which  has  borne  the  name  of  the  Fulton  Line,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Ordinance  Line ;  this  established  the  fact  that  the 
mouth  of  the  Maumee  River  lay  north  of  the  said  Ordinance 
Line,  and  in  Michigan  Territory. 

From  this  date  forward  the  annals  of  Congress  are  filled 
with  repeated  attempts  to  have  Congress  approve  the  so-called 
Harris  line  as  the  official  boundary  of  the  state  of  Ohio,  but 
each  such  attempt  failed.  Attorney  General  Benjamin  F.  But- 
ler advised  President  Jackson  that  while  Congress,  in  receiving 
Ohio,  implicitly  assented  to  the  boundary  proviso,  the  assent 
of  Congress  was  necessary  to  the  change,  and  until  Congress 
did  give  assent,  it  was  his  duty  to  enforce  the  laws — in  short 
to  take  the  side  of  Michigan.61    John  Quincy  Adams  said : 

Never  in  the  course  of  my  life  have  I  known  a  controversy  of  which 
all  the  right  was  so  clear  on  one  side,  and  all  the  power  so  overwhelm- 
ingly on  the  other;  never  a  case  where  the  temptation  was  so  intense 
to  take  the  strongest  side,  and  the  duty  of  taking  the  weakest  was  so 
thankless.62 

Citizens  of  Indiana  early  in  the  struggle  espoused  the  cause 
of  Michigan.    John  Tipton  is  credited  with  the  statement  that 


61Senate  Documents,  24  Congress,  1  session,  No.  6,  pp.  4-13. 
62Cooley,  Thomas  M.,  Michigan,  a  History  of  Governments,  p.  219 
(New  York,  1905). 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  307 

this  matter  was  a  question  of  concern  to  all  states  because  of  the 
physical  strength  of  Ohio. 

If  the  strong  are  suffered  to  beat  down  the  weak  by  the  strong  arm 
of  force,  what  guarantee  have  the  other  territories  of  the  United  States 
that  the  neighboring  states  may  not  desire  a  portion,  or  all,  of  their 
territory?  ....  there  are  still  wire-workers  behind  the  curtain.  It  is 
believed  that  a  set  of  heartless  speculators,  who  own  property  on 
Maumee  Bay,  stimulate  and  urge  this  matter  on  their  public  men.63 

Meantime  Michigan  was  eagerly  demanding  her  enabling 
act,  desiring  the  increased  strength  this  would  give  her  in  Con- 
gress. In  1834  and  again  in  1835  her  petitions  fell  on  deaf 
ears ;  a  census  revealed  her  population  to  be  87,273,  or  more 
than  27,000  in  excess  of  the  required  number.04  The  people  of 
Michigan  were  angered  because  their  demands  were  not  recog- 
nized, and  led  by  their  vigorous  "Boy  Governor,"  Stevens  T. 
Mason,  without  any  enabling  act,  called  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion in  May,  1835,  and  a  constitution,  which  has  been  called 
"almost  a  Declaration  of  Independence,"  was  formed ;  this 
constitution  was  adopted  by  the  people  in  the  following  October, 
and  all  state  officers  elected  or  appointed,  and  a  Congressman 
elected.  The  legislature  met  in  November,  inaugurated  Mason 
as  governor,  and  chose  their  United  States  senators.65  Here 
we  have  the  interesting  example  of  a  fully  formed  state  existing 
without  the  Union  from  November  2,  1835  to  January  26, 
1837.  In  framing  their  constitution  they  adhered  to  the 
original  Ordinance  Line,  which  of  course  threatened  the  north- 
ern boundaries  of  Indiana  and  Illinois  as  well  as  Ohio  and 
forced  the  congressmen  of  these  states  to  join  to  defeat 
Michigan.66 


^Logansport  Canal  Telegraph,  April  4,  1835.     See  ante,  p.  305. 

64Utley,  Henry  M.,  and  Byron  M.  Cutcheon,  Michigan  As  a  Prov- 
ince, Territory  and  State,  Vol.  II,  p.  337  (New  York,  1906). 

^Ibid.,  pp.  319-23- 

66Soule,  Annah  May,  "The  Southern  and  Western  Boundaries  of 
Michigan,"  Michigan  Historical  Collections,  Vol.  XXVII,  p.  357  (Lans- 
ing, 1897),  reprinted  in  part  in  Ohio  Co-operative  Topographic  Survey, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  71-112,  under  title,  "The  Controversy  over  the  Ohio-Michigan 
Boundary." 


308  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

By  this  time  there  was  a  wider  appreciation  of  the  value  of 
this  area.  Governor  Noah  Noble,  of  Indiana,  in  his  message  of 
1834  asserted: 

Were  it  possible  to  recognize  this  claim,  Indiana  would  lose  a  dis- 
trict ten  miles  wide,  extending  entirely  across  the  northern  part  of  the 
State,  including  one  of  the  fairest  and  most  desirable  portions  of  her 
territory,  and  be  entirely  excluded  from  any  access  to  the  Lake,  except 
through  a  foreign  jurisdiction. 

This  claim  can  never  be  acceded  to  by  Indiana,  and  it  is  highly 
important  that  the  question   should  be  brought  to  an  early  decision.67 

Senator  John  Tipton,  when  debating  the  admission  of  Mich- 
igan in  Congress  on  March  30,  1836,  stated:  "Indiana  never 
will  surrender  what  Michigan  claims  to  any  power  on  earth." 
He  admitted  the  rights  of  Michigan  as  to  her  claim  with  Ohio, 
but  continued,  "she  should  not,  in  pursuance  of  those  rights, 
violate  the  rights  of  others.  She  has  no  right  to  the  ten  miles 
claimed  by  her  Constitution  from  Indiana;  and  if  that  claim 
continues  to  be  urged,  I  am  against  her."68  For  his  attitude  on 
the  Michigan  question,  Tipton  was  commended  by  Calvin 
Fletcher  in  a  letter  dated  January  20,  1836.69 

We  find  that  our  Indiana  legislature  realized  the  seriousness 
of  the  situation,  and  Samuel  Bigger,  chairman  of  the  select 
committee  to  which  the  matter  was  referred,  made  a  report, 
February  7,  1835,  in  which  he  referred  to  the  growing  im- 
portance of  the  area :  "A  portion  of  the  ten  miles  in  question, 
on  account  of  the  inducements  held  out  for  emigration,  the 
excellence  of  the  country  and  the  anticipated  advantages  of  a 
prompt  and  constant  market  on  the  lake,  has  within  a  few  years 
received  an  increase  of  population  almost  without  a  parallel" ; 
again  he  speaks  of  it  as  "embracing  a  most  fertile  tract  of 
country,  and  that  part  of  Lake  Michigan  which  we  have  been 
taught  to  prize  as  all  important  to  the  trade,  commerce  and 
agricultural  interests  of  the  northern  part  of  the  state."     He 


"Indiana,  House  Journal,  1834-35.  P-   16   (Indianapolis,  1834)- 
*8Logansport  Canal  Telegraph,  May  7,  1836;  the  speech  here  quoted 

appears    in   the    Congressional   Debates,   24    Congress,    1    session,   cols. 

1008-11. 

69Tipton  Papers,  Indiana  State  Library. 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  309 

further  states  that  "great  and  lasting  injury  would  be  done 
the  state  of  Indiana,  by  stripping  her  of  the  territory  claimed 
by  Michigan.  Her  whole  northern  trade  and  commercial  inter- 
ests, so  far  as  the  same  is  connected  with  the  possession  of 
the  lake,  would  be  placed  in  the  power  of  a  strange  jurisdic- 
tion."70 

A  resolution  was  adopted,  paragraph  one  of  which  stated: 

Resolved  by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  That 
our  Senators  in  Congress  be  instructed,  and  our  representatives  re- 
quested, to  resist  the  establishment  of  the  southern  boundary  of  Michigan 
on  a  line  drawn  east  and  west  from  the  southern  extremity  of  Lake 
Michigan;  and  also  that  they  insist  upon  the  present  northern  boundary 
of  Indiana,  as  prescribed  in  the  act  of  Congress  of  1816,  providing 
for  her  admission  into  the  Union.71 

In  January,  1836  Samuel  Bigger  prepared  another  joint 
resolution,  which  was  adopted  and  transmitted  to  Congress  on 
the  twentieth  of  that  month.  This  resolution  took  a  further 
step,  instructing  our  senators  and  representatives  to  oppose  the 
admission  of  the  people  of  Michigan  as  a  state,  "unless  they, 
by  their  constitution,  shall  acknowledge  the  present  northern 
boundary  of  Indiana."72 

In  pursuance  of  this  changed  sentiment,  Senator  Hendricks 
opposed  the  seating  of  the  senators  from  Michigan  in  Decem- 
ber, 1835  ;73  in  March,  1836  Lucius  Lyon  wrote  to  his  fellow 
citizens  in  Michigan  that  Senators  Hendricks  and  Tipton  had 
declared  they  would  not  vote  for  any  bill  that  did  not  provide 
for  a  change  of  the  Michigan  constitution.74 

Ohio,  meantime,  had  become  thoroughly  aroused  over  the 
failure  of  Congress  to  give  the  required  assent  to  her  boundary 
proviso,  and  the  legislature  promptly  passed  a  bill  which  pro- 
vided for  the  extension  of  her  jurisdiction  over  the  contiguous 
counties  in  the  disputed  area,  and  for  the  re-marking  of  the 
Harris  Line,  with  an  appropriation  for  the  enforcement  of  the 


70Laws  of  Indiana,  local,  1834-35,  p.  260. 
71Ibid.,  p.  262. 

72Senate  Documents,  24  Congress,  1  session,  No.  72. 
7 Congressional  Debates,  24  Congress,  1  session,  cols.  38-39. 
74"Letters  of  Lucius  Lyon,"  Michigan  Historical  Collections,  Vol. 
XXVII,  pp.  492-93. 


310  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

Act.75  The  summer  of  1835  proved  an  eventful  one  for  Michi- 
gan and  Ohio.  Governor  Lucas,  of  Ohio,  with  his  staff, 
boundary  commissioners,  General  Bell,  and  some  six  hundred 
Ohio  militia  marched  to  the  border  line.  Governor  Mason,  of 
Michigan,  with  General  Brown  and  nearly  one  thousand  Michi- 
gan militia  occupied  Toledo.  At  this  juncture,  two  commission- 
ers, Richard  Rush  and  B.  C.  Howard,  sent  by  President 
Jackson,  arrived,  and  tried  to  effect  a  compromise.  Their  pro- 
posals, which  were  favorable  to  Ohio,  were  accepted  by 
Governor  Lucas,  but  rejected  by  Governor  Mason,  who  hoped 
to  see  Michigan's  congressmen  seated  at  the  next  session  and 
in  a  position  to  enforce  their  claims ;  by  mutual  consent  the 
militias  of  both  states  were  dismissed.  In  July,  1835,  however, 
Governor  Lucas  repeated  his  attempt  to  re-mark  the  Harris 
Line,  but  his  surveyors  were  promptly  seized  by  Michigan 
officials. 

President  Jackson  attempted  to  avert  a  crisis  by  removing 
the  impulsive  Governor  Mason,  September  1 1 ;  he  appointed 
John  S.  Horner,  of  Virginia,  to  succeed  him,  but  the  people  of 
Michigan  adhered  to  their  "Boy  Governor."  Horner  arrived 
at  Detroit  September  19  and  remained  there  eight  months,  but 
was  powerless.  Here  again  we  have  another  interesting  situa- 
tion, a  governor  of  a  territory,  appointed  by  the  President,  and 
a  governor  of  an  unrecognized  state,  elected  by  the  people. 

Governor  Lucas  finally  succeeded  in  exercising  jurisdiction 
for  his  state  by  holding  a  session  of  court  in  the  outskirts  of 
Toledo,  with  an  escort  of  twenty  armed  men,  at  three  o'clock 
in  the  morning  of  September  7,  1835,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
Michigan  militia  occupied  the  heart  of  the  city  in  an  effort  to 
prevent  it ;  Lucas,  apparently  satisfied  with  his  accomplishment, 
withdrew  his  forces ;  the  second  episode  of  the  "'Toledo  War" 
came  to  a  bloodless  end. 


76For  events  in  the  history  of  Ohio  and  Michigan  connected  with 
this  boundary  controversy  and  the  admission  of  Michigan  into  the  Union, 
consult  Soule,  "The  Southern  and  Western  Boundaries  of  Michigan," 
Michigan  Historical  Collections,  Vol.  XXVII,  pp.  346-90;  Cooley,  Michi- 
gan, a  History  of  Governments;  Utley  and  Cutcheon,  Michigan  As  a 
Province,  Territory  and  State,  Vol.  II,  especially  pp.  Z\7&- 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  311 

It  was  realized  that  the  Ohio-Michigan  boundary  dispute 
could  not  be  settled  ultimately  by  the  states  themselves,  but 
only  by  Congress.  A  presidential  election  was  near.  Politically, 
Ohio  was  doubtful,  and  with  her  now  stood  Indiana  and 
Illinois,  controlling  some  thirty-nine  electoral  votes.  Admis- 
sion of  Michigan  was  most  desirable;  on  June  15,  1836,  there- 
fore, a  compromise  bill  was  passed  by  Congress  giving  Ohio 
the  disputed  territory,  and  offering  Michigan  the  Northern 
Peninsula.  A  convention  of  delegates,  elected  by  the  people  of 
Michigan,  at  the  call  of  the  Governor,  rejected  the  compromise. 
All  state  officials  and  the  congressmen  who  had  been  elected, 
wished  to  take  office,  however,  and  Michigan  wished  to  have 
her  share  in  the  distribution  of  five  per  cent  of  public  moneys 
soon  to  be  made  by  the  federal  government.  Thus  pressure  was 
brought  to  bear  on  all  sides ;  upon  the  Governor's  refusal  to 
call  a  second  convention,  the  Democrats  took  matters  into  their 
own  hands  and  called  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  second 
convention,  a  procedure  in  which  the  Whigs  refused  to  take 
any  part.  This  convention,  made  up  almost  entirely  of  members 
of  the  Democratic  party,  held  what  was  termed  by  opponents 
the  "frost-bitten  convention,"  and  accepted  the  compromise  bill ; 
according  to  Hinsdale  it  was  an  entirely  extralegal  group, 

Having  no  more  authority  to  do  so  than  the  crew  of  a  Detroit 
schooner  or  a  lumberman's  camp  in  the  Valley  of  the  Grand  River.  .  .  . 
Most  astounding  of  all,  the  two  Houses  of  Congress,  by  large  majorities, 
passed  an  act  .  .  .  accepting  this  convention  as  meeting  the  require- 
ments of  the  act  of  admission,  and  so  declared  Michigan  one  of  the 
United  States.76 

This  act  admitting  Michigan,  passed  in  1836,  describes  that 
state  as  bounded  on  the  south  by  Ohio  and  Indiana.77 

Had  Michigan  not  accepted  the  compromise  bill  and  settled 
the  northern  boundary  of  Indiana,  what  would  have  been  the 
outcome?  Inasmuch  as  the  federal  constitution  provides  that 
no  state  may  be  erected  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  other 


76Hinsdale,  Burke  A.,  The  Old  Northwest  with  a  view  of  the  thir- 
teen colonies  as  constituted  by  the  Royal  charters,  p.  335  (New  York, 
1899). 

77 Acts  of  Congress,  24  Congress,  1  session,  pp.  84-85. 


312  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

state,  the  controversy  had  to  be  disposed  of  before  Michigan 
could  be  admitted.  Had  her  dispute  centered  against  Indiana, 
she  would  have  asserted  prior  claim  because  the  act  of  Congress 
giving  Michigan  Territory  the  disputed  strip  antedated  the  gift 
to  Indiana  by  eleven  years.  Against  this  claim  Indiana  would 
have  contended  that  the  later  act  was  the  more  binding,  because 
instead  of  being  a  mere  act  for  the  government  of  a  territory, 
it  was  a  compact  made  with  a  sovereign  state  and  ratified  by 
the  citizens  of  that  state  and  could  be  broken  only  by  the  con- 
sent of  the  citizens  with  whom  the  said  compact  had  been  made. 
Furthermore  Indiana  had  had  undisputed  possession  of  the  area 
since  her  admission.  A  close  study  of  all  the  references  of 
Michigan  statesmen  as  quoted  above  leads  one  to  believe  that 
they  realized  fully  that  the  ultimate  verdict  would  undoubtedly 
have  been  rendered  in  favor  of  Indiana. 

Indiana  little  knew  how  valuable  this  ten  mile  strip  would  be 
in  her  future  development.  As  late  as  1821,  when  John  Tipton 
made  the  official  survey  of  our  western  boundary,  he  described 
in  detail  the  low  sandy  hills  of  the  Lake  Michigan  region,  and 
continued:  "immediately  behind  thos[e]  hill [s]  the  country 
falls  off  into  pond[s]  and  marshes  that  can  never  admit  of  set- 
tlement nor  never  will  be  of  much  service  to  our  State."78  Yet 
this  area  is  destined  to  be  a  part  of  the  greatest  industrial  cen- 
ter in  the  world.  In  it,  in  recent  years,  have  been  constructed 
great  units  of  the  Standard,  the  Roxana,  and  the  Sinclair  Oil 
Companies,  the  Universal  Portland  Cement  Plant,  the  United 
States  Steel  Company,  and  numberless  smaller  steel  mills  which 
would  not  have  chosen  this  location  but  for  the  lake  harbor. 
The  original  boundary  would  have  entered  the  lake  within  the 
city  of  Gary,  and  had  the  Ordinance  Line  been  held  inviolable, 
that  city,  as  now  located,  would  have  been  under  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  three  states,  Michigan,  Indiana,  and  Wisconsin.  We 
would  have  lost  the  beautiful  farming  area  and  the  populous 
district  including  Elkhart,  South  Bend,  Mishawaka,  Lagrange, 


78Journal  of  John  Tipton,  commissioner  on  the  part  of  Indiana  for 
marking  the  Illinois-Indiana  boundary  line,  p.  34-  Copy  by  George 
Pence,  in  Indiana  State  Library. 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  313 

and  Angola.  The  state  prison  would  not  have  been  located  at 
Michigan  City.  We  would  have  been  deprived  of  the  attractive 
lake  region  in  our  northeastern  corner,  and  Indiana  would  never 
have  possessed  the  Dunes  or  Pokagon  state  parks.  Fortunate, 
indeed,  was  Indiana,  that  our  forefathers  were  far-sighted 
enough  to  secure  for  us  approximately  forty-one  miles  of  front- 
age on  beautiful  Lake  Michigan  and  provide  space  within  her 
confines  for  this  great  industrial  center.  Fortunate,  indeed,  is 
Indiana,  that  the  present  generation  has  been  far-sighted  enough 
to  establish  the  Indiana  Dunes  Park,  thus  preserving  three  miles 
of  this  lake  frontage  and  there  establishing  one  of  the  most 
inspiring  playgrounds  in  the  world  for  the  use  and  enjoyment 
of  her  citizens  throughout  all  the  generations  that  are  to  come. 


APPENDIX  I 

Procedure  in  regard  to  the  Indiana  Enabling  Act  as  it 
appears  in  the  Annals,  14  Congress,  1  session. 

HOUSE   OF   REPRESENTATIVES 

December  28,  1815 

Jennings  presented  petition  of  Legislature  of  Indiana  Terri- 
tory praying  that  said  territory  might  be  erected  into  a  state 
government.  Referred  to  Jennings,  McKee,  Henderson,  Reed, 
and  Moffit.    Col.  408. 

January  5,  1816 

The  above  mentioned  committee  reported.  (Report  given 
col.  460).  Jennings  reported  a  bill  to  enable  people  of  Indiana 
Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government  and  for 
admission  of  such  state  into  the  Union.  Read  twice  and  "com- 
mitted to  a  Committee  of  Whole  to-morrow."  The  report 
stated  that  the  northern  boundary  of  Indiana  should  touch  the 
southern  extreme  of  Lake  Michigan.     Col.  459-60. 

March  29,  1816 

House  in  committee  of  whole.  Variety  of  amendments 
received.  Amendments  reported  were  successively  agreed  to 
and  the  bill,  as  amended,  was  ordered  to  be  engrossd  for  a 
third  reading.     Col.  1293. 

March  30,  1816 

Engrossed  bill  read  the  third  time  and  passed.  108 — 3. 
Nays,  Goldsborough,  Maryland ;  Lewis,  Virginia ;  Randolph, 
Virginia.    Col.  1300. 

April  13,  1816 

Message  from  Senate  that  Senate  had  passed  bill,  and  ask- 
ing concurrence  of  House  in  amendments.     Col.  1367. 

April  15,  1816 

Amendments  proposed  by  Senate  were  read  and  concurred 
in  by  House.     Col.  1373. 

(3i4) 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  315 

SENATE 

January  2,  1816 

Memorial  of  Legislative  Council  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives of  Indiana  Territory  communicated  by  President  to 
Senate;  referred  to  committee:  Morrow,  chairman.  Col.  31. 

March  30,  1816 

Senate  received  word  that  House  had  passed  bill.    Col.  225. 

April  1,  1816 

The  eleven  bills  last  brought  up  for  concurrence  were  read 
and  severally  passed  to  second  reading.    Col.  256. 

April  2,  1816 

The  bill  was  read  second  time  and  referred  to  Committee  on 
the  memorial  of  the  legislature  of  the  Mississippi  Territory. 
Col.  274. 

April  2,  1816 

Moved  that  said  committee  (on  admission  of  Indiana  and 
Mississippi  Territories)  ascertain  and  report  number  of  in- 
habitants in  said  territories.    Col.  276. 

April  3,  1816 

Ordered  on  motion  by  Morrow  that  committee  to  whom 
bill  was  referred  be  discharged  and  that  it  be  referred  to  com- 
mittee appointed  January  2  on  the  memorial  of  the  Legislative 
Council  and  House  of  Representatives  of  Indiana  Territory. 
Col.  278. 

April  4,  1816 

Morrow  reports  from  committee  the  bill  with  amendments 
and  certified  statement  of  census  of  Indiana  Territory.  Col.  282. 

April  12,  1816 

Senate  in  committee  of  whole  considers  bill  together  with 
amendments  reported  by  committee  and  the  bill  having  been 
amended,  the  President  reported  it  to  the  Senate.    Col.  312. 

April  13,  1816 

Amendments  to  the  bill  having  been  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee correctly  engrossed,  the  bill  was  read  a  third  time  as 
amended.  "Resolved,  That  this  bill  pass  with  amendments/' 
Col.  315. 


APPENDIX  II 

The  Enabling  Act  as  it  first  passed  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives and  was  sent  to  the  Senate  for  concurrence. 

H.  R.     No.  24 

In  Senate  of  the  United  States 

April  1,  1816. 


Read,  and  passed  to  the  second  reading. 


AN  ACT 


To  enable  the  people  of  the  Indiana  Territory  to  form  a  Con- 
stitution and  State  Government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such 
State  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States. 


1  Sec.  2.     And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  said  State 

2  shall  consist  of  all  the  Territory  included  within  the  fol- 

3  lowing  boundaries,  to  wit:     bounded  on  the  east  by  the 

4  western  line  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  from  the  forty-second 

5  degree  of  north  latitude  to  the  mouth  of  the  Great  Miami 

6  River;  on  the  south,  by  the  River  Ohio,  from  the  mouth 

7  of  the  Great  Miami  River,  to  the  mouth  of  the  River 

8  Wabash;  on  the  west,  by  the  Wabash  River,   from   its 

9  mouth,  to  the  town  of  Vincennes,  and  from  thence  by  the 

10  meanders  of  the  said  River  Wabash,  to  a  point  where  a 

11  due  north  line,  drawn  from  the  said  town  of  Vincennes, 

12  would  last  touch  the  north-western  shore  of  the  said  river ; 

13  from  thence,  by  a  due  north  line,  until  it  shall  intersect  a 

14  due  east  and  west  line,  which  shall  touch  the  forty-second 

15  degree  of  north  latitude;  and  on  the  north  by  the  forty- 

16  second  degree  of  north  latitude.     Provided,  that  the  con- 

17  vention    hereinafter    provided    for,    when    formed,    shall 

18  ratify  the  boundaries  aforesaid,  otherwise  they  shall  be 

19  and  remain  as  now  prescribed  by  the  ordinance  for  the 

government  of  the  Territory  north-west  of  the  River 
(3i6)   " 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  317 

Ohio.  Provided  also  that  the  said  State  shall  have 
concurrent  jurisdiction  on  the  river  Wabash  with  the 
State  to  be  formed  west  thereof  so  far  as  the  said  river 
shall  form  a  common  boundary  to  both. 

^«         sjt         ifc         ;|e         >je         ije 

1  Sec.  4.     And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  members  of 

2  the  convention  thus  duly  elected,  be,  and  they  are  hereby 

3  authorized  to  meet  at  the  seat  of  the  government  of  the 

4  said  Territory,  on  the  second  Monday  of  June  next,  which 

5  convention,  when  met,  shall  first  determine  by  a  majority 

6  of  the  whole  number  elected,  whether  it  be,  or  be  not 

7  expedient  at  that  time,  to  form  a  constitution  and  State 

8  government  for  the  people  within  the  said  Territory,  and 

9  if  it  be  determined  to  be  expedient,  the  convention  shall  be, 

10  and  hereby  are  authorized  to  form  a  constitution  and  State 

11  government;  or  if  it  be  deemed  more  expedient,  the  said 

12  convention  shall  provide  by  ordinance  for  electing  repre- 

13  sentatives  to  form  a  constitution  or  frame  of  government; 

14  which  said  representatives  shall  be  chosen  in  such  manner, 

15  and  in  such  proportion,  and  shall  meet  at  such  time  and 

16  place,  as  shall  be  prescribed  by  the  said  ordinance,  and 

17  shall  then  form  for  the  people  of  said  Territory,  a  consti- 

18  tution  and  State  government:     Provided,  That  the  same, 

19  whenever  formed,  shall  be  republican,  and  not  repugnant 

20  to  those  articles  of  the  ordinance  of  the  thirteenth  of  July, 

21  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty  seven,  which  are 

22  declared  to  be  irrevocable  between  the  original  States  and 

23  the  people  and  States  of  the  Territory  north-west  of  the 

River  Ohio,  excepting  so  much  of  said  articles  as  relate 
to  the  boundaries  of  the  States  therein  to  be  formed. 


APPENDIX  III 

An  Act  to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  commissioners 
to  adjust  the  boundary  between  the  state  or  states  to  be  formed 
north  of  a  line  running  east  and  west  through  the  southerly 
extreme  of  Lake  Michigan  and  the  states  of  Ohio,  Indiana  and 
Illinois. 

Sec.  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislative  Council  of  the 
Territory  of  Michigan,  That  there  shall  be  three  commissioners 
appointed  by  the  Governor  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Legislative  Council, 
whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  enter  into  a  negotiation  with  such  com- 
missioners as  may  be  appointed  on  the  part  of  the  states  of 
Ohio,  Indiana,  or  Illinois,  or  with  the  Governors  of  those 
states,  to  adjust  and  finally  settle  the  northern  boundary  of  the 
said  states  or  either  of  them.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said 
commissioners,  or  a  majority  of  them,  to  make  a  report  of  their 
proceedings  to  the  legislature  or  legislatures  of  the  state  or  states 
to  be  formed  north  of  the  aforesaid  line ;  and  if  said  boundary 
line  shall  be  ascertained  or  agreed  upon  by  the  said  commis- 
sioners, it  shall  become  the  fixed  and  established  boundary  be- 
tween such  of  the  said  states  as  shall  consent  and  agree  to  the 
same,  by  the  ratification  of  the  proceedings  of  the  said  com- 
missioners by  their  legislatures  respectively,  so  soon  as  their 
consent  shall  be  given. 

Sec.  2.  And  the  said  commissioners  to  be  appointed  on  the 
part  of  Michigan  shall  receive  such  compensation  for  their 
services  as  may  be  allowed  them  by  law. 

Approved,  December  26,  1834. 
Appeal  by  the  Convention  of  Michigan,  to  the  People  of  the 
United  States;  with  other  Documents  in  relation  to  the  Bound- 
ary Question  between  Michigan  and  Ohio,  pp.  145-46  (Detroit, 
1835). 


(3i8) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Government  Publications,  Official  Documents 

United  States  Congress.  Debates  and  Proceedings  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  The,  .  .  . ,  1,  7,  8,  14 
Congresses    (Washington.   1834-54).     Cited  as  Annals. 

.  Journals  of  the  American  Congress,  Vol.  IV  (Wash- 
ington, 1823).     Cited  as  Journals  of  Congress. 

.  Register  of  debates  in  Congress,  comprising  the  lead- 
ing debates  and  incidents  of  the  eighteenth  Congress, 
second  session  to  the  twenty-fifth  Congress,  first  ses- 
sion, .  .  .,23  and  24  Congresses  (Washington,  1834, 
1836).     Cited  as  Congressional  Debates. 

.     Reports  of  Committees,  House,  23  Congress,  1   ses- 
sion  (No  place,  no  date).     Cited  as  Committee  Reports. 
Public  Documents  printed  by  order  of  the  Senate  of 


the  United  States  .  .  .,24  Congress,  1  session  (Wash- 
ington, 1836).     Cited  as  Senate  Documents. 

Indiana.  Journal  of  the  Convention  of  the  Indiana  Territory 
.    .    .    (Louisville,  1816). 

.     Journal  of  the  House   of  Representatives,    1834-35 

(Indianapolis,  1834).     Cited  as  Indiana  House  Journal. 

.     Laws  of  Indiana,  local,  1834-35  (Indianapolis,  1835). 

See  also  Esarey,  Logan,  in  section  of  Historical  Books 


and  Articles. 

Michigan.  See  Fuller,  George  N.,  in  section  of  Historical 
Books  and  Articles. 

.     Appeal  by  the  Convention  of  Michigan  to  the  People 

of  the  United  States;  with  other  Documents,  in  relation  to 
the  Boundary  Question  between  Michigan  and  Ohio  (De- 
troit, 1835). 

Manuscripts 

Tipton,  John.     Papers.     Manuscripts  in  Indiana  State  Library. 
.    Journal  of  John  Tipton,  commissioner  on  the  part  of 

Indiana   for   marking  the   Illinois-Indiana   boundary   line. 

Copy  by  George  Pence,  in  Indiana  State  Library. 

(3i9) 


320  The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana 

Newspapers 

Logansport  Canal  Telegraph,   1835  and  1836. 
Western  Sun,  The,  Vincennes,  1816. 

Maps 

Indiana  State  Library.     2  Vols.     (Indianapolis,  1890). 
.     Miscellaneous  collection  of  Photostat  maps. 

Historical  Books  and  Articles 

Burnet,  Jacob,  Notes  on  the  Early  Settlement  of  the  North- 
western Territory     (Cincinnati,  1847). 

Cooley,  Thomas  Mclntyre,  Michigan,  a  History  of  Govern- 
ments    (New  York,  1905). 

Esarey,  Logan  (ed).,  Messages  and  Papers  of  Jonathan  Jen- 
nings, Ratliff  Boon,  William  Hendricks  (Indiana  His- 
torical Collections,  Vol.  XII,  Indianapolis,  1924). 

Fiske,  John,  The  Critical  Period  of  American  History,  1783- 
1789    (Riverside  Press,  1888.) 

Ford,  Paul  Leicester  (ed.),  The  Works  of  Thomas  Jefferson, 
Vol.  IV     (New  York,  1904). 

Fuller,  George  N.  (ed.),  Messages  of  the  Governors  of 
Michigan,  Vols.  I  and  II     (Lansing,  1925  and  1926). 

Hinsdale,  Burke  A.,  The  Old  Northwest  with  a  view  of  the 
thirteen  colonies  as  constituted  by  the  Royal  charters 
(New  York,  1899). 

Kettleborough,  Charles,  Constitution  Making  in  Indiana,  Vol.  I 
(Indiana  Historical  Collections,  Indianapolis,  1916). 

Larzelere,  Claude  S.,  "The  Boundaries  of  Michigan,"  Michi- 
gan Historical  Collections,  Vol.  XXX,  pp.  1-27  (Lansing, 
1906). 

"Lyon,  Lucius,  Letters  of."    See  Stuart,  L.  G.  (ed.). 

Macdonald,  William  (ed.),  Documentary  Source  Book  of 
American  History,  1606-1926     (New  York,  1926). 

Mendenhall,  T.  C,  and  A.  A.  Graham,  "Boundary  Line  be- 
tween Ohio  and  Indiana,  and  between  Ohio  and  Michi- 
gan," Ohio  Archeological  and  Historical  Publications,  Vol. 
IV,  pp.  127-98     (Cincinnati,  no  date). 

Miller,  G.  J.,  "The  Establishment  of  Michigan's  Boundaries," 
American  Geographical  Society,  Vol.  XLIII,  pp.  339-51. 

Robson,  Frank  E.,  "The  Michigan  and  Ohio  Boundary  Line," 
Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Collections,  Vol.  XI,  pp. 
216-27     (Lansing,  1888). 


The  Northern  Boundary  of  Indiana  321 

Sherman,  C.  E.,  The  Ohio-Michigan  Boundary  (Ohio  Co- 
operative Topographic  Survey,  Vol.  I  (Ohio  State  Re- 
formatory Press,  1916). 

Schlesinger,  Arthur  M.,  "Basis  of  the  Ohio-Michigan  Bound- 
ary Dispute,"  Ohio  Co-operative  Topographic  Survey, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  59-70    (Ohio  State  Reformatory  Press,  1916). 

Soule,  Annah  May,  "The  Southern  and  Western  Boundaries  of 
Michigan,"  Michigan  Historical  Collections,  Vol.  XXVII, 
pp.  346-90;  (Lansing,  1897)  ;  also  reprinted  in  part  in  the 
Ohio  Co-operative  Topographic  Survey,  Vol.  I,  pp.  71-112, 
under  the  title  "The  Controversy  over  the  Ohio-Michigan 
Boundary." 

Soule,  Annah  May,  "The  Michigan-Indiana  Boundary," 
Michigan  Historical  Collections,  Vol.  XXVII,  pp.  341-45 
(Lansing,  1897). 

Stuart,  L.  G.,  "Verdict  for  Michigan.  How  the  Upper  Penin- 
sula became  a  part  of  Michigan,"  Michigan  Historical 
Collections,  Vol.  XXVII,  pp.  390-403     (Lansing,  1897). 

Stuart,  L.  G.  (ed.),  "Letters  of  Lucius  Lyon,"  Michigan  His- 
torical Collections,  Vol.  XXVII,  pp.  412-604  (Lansing, 
1897). 

Utley,  Henry  M.,  and  Byron  M.  Cutcheon,  Michigan  as  a 
Province,  Territory  and  State,  the  Twenty-Sixth  Member 
of  the  Federal  Union,  Vol.  II     (New  York,  1906). 

Way,  W.  V.,  The  Facts  and  Historical  Events  of  the  Toledo 
War  of  1835  as  connected  with  the  first  session  of  the 
court  of  common  pleas  of  Lucas  County,  Ohio.  (Toledo, 
1869). 


